Quote ="Superted"What's interesting with this is that the Sharks were guided by the NRL commission on how to handle this situation. Carney had already had a number of misdemeanours that had not made it into the public domain, and the NRL put pressure on the Sharks to take immediate action - with the whole ASADA thing going on at the time, the Sharks really had no choice but to follow the NRLs guidance.
It's bad form by Carney, he would have been sacked anyway, but is using a loophole - the Sharks looked after him well and shielded him from a lot more criticism for his behaviour during his time at the club (admittedly for the benefit of both parties) - he was already on his last life when he joined the Sharks, and he'd have been sacked much sooner for the previous undisclosed incidents at most clubs. But that's the world we live in today - chancers and wrong uns mascarading as victims using processes/legislation that are put in place to protect actual innocent victims for their own gain.'"
carney wasn't kept employed by the sharks as a favour to him. He was kept because of his skills, and he was and would be kept for his skills for exactly the length of time they outweighed his misdemeanours. The moment they didn't he would be kicked to the curb.
It's always interesting how much 'loyalty' is expected from the player to the club and how little is expected the other way.
The Sharks made a contract. They decided to break it. Carney should be protected from that just the same as the Sharks are protected from him up and leaving for another club.